kingpin101 wrote:1L's just had the annual "How to not Fuck up EIP" spiel. Only interesting takeaway: 91% participation rate, 92% success rate

92% is pretty good, especially considering how everyone was freaking out about how bad EIP went in september. Last time we had that high was 2013.

Yeah and they did point out that the strike outs were x2 as likely not to have set up any meetings with OCS than those who did not strike out.

Yeah the 92% success rate was definitely impressive. Not sure I believe the claim that the strike outs didn't meet with them, I think that was just a threat.

I did like their guidance on where to go for advice -- "You're gonna get a lot of advice from a lot of people about EIP, including many who have only done EIP once. We recommend you talk to us, since we've done it many times."

It got a pretty good laugh from the room, as did a few other things they said. Also some really confusing statements that they made repeatedly about how the goal isn't to get the most screeners, but to get interviews with firms that you'll fit well with. Fit is obviously an aspect, but how can they possibly say it's objectively better to have fewer interviews? They made a particular note to say you shouldn't "game the system" with spreadsheets and research and such, because people who do that end up wasting their time just to get one more interview. I can't even come up with a rational basis for why it's in their interest to push that narrative.

They also described ranking bids IMO in the wrong way, saying that if you really want a firm you should rank them higher and that's what it's about. They mentioned First Failed Bid in passing and said the list will be available in June, but didn't really explain the actual selection process. Just a really weird presentation overall if you came into it with any prior knowledge of how the system works.

Yeah I agree that it's a flame, but I think the group who probably are totally unorganized and don't prep at all (and strikeout) are correlated with the same group that doesn't bother to meet with OCS at all. They also included what past EIP participants have listed as being helpful and 2Ls/3Ls was near the top and OCS was the very last with only a few %

Last edited by GreenEggs on Fri Jan 26, 2018 9:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.

kingpin101 wrote:1L's just had the annual "How to not Fuck up EIP" spiel. Only interesting takeaway: 91% participation rate, 92% success rate

92% is pretty good, especially considering how everyone was freaking out about how bad EIP went in september. Last time we had that high was 2013.

It wasn't anywhere near that high in 2013. They were like 81%.

No one is gonna like me saying this, most of all myself, but a 92% offer rate is a 2007 number.

Nah dude. I'm not bullshitting, if you actually look at the numbers, its 92% in 2013, then 87, 88, and 92 again. CLS has been consistently average ~90% post-recession. If any year was 80% it was 2009/10.

kingpin101 wrote:1L's just had the annual "How to not Fuck up EIP" spiel. Only interesting takeaway: 91% participation rate, 92% success rate

92% is pretty good, especially considering how everyone was freaking out about how bad EIP went in september. Last time we had that high was 2013.

It wasn't anywhere near that high in 2013. They were like 81%.

No one is gonna like me saying this, most of all myself, but a 92% offer rate is a 2007 number.

Nah dude. I'm not bullshitting, if you actually look at the numbers, its 92% in 2013, then 87, 88, and 92 again. CLS has been consistently average ~90% post-recession. If any year was 80% it was 2009/10.

C/O 2016 (OCI '14) was 87%. The year before, 85%. '14 said their year was like 81%.

kingpin101 wrote:1L's just had the annual "How to not Fuck up EIP" spiel. Only interesting takeaway: 91% participation rate, 92% success rate

92% is pretty good, especially considering how everyone was freaking out about how bad EIP went in september. Last time we had that high was 2013.

It wasn't anywhere near that high in 2013. They were like 81%.

No one is gonna like me saying this, most of all myself, but a 92% offer rate is a 2007 number.

Nah dude. I'm not bullshitting, if you actually look at the numbers, its 92% in 2013, then 87, 88, and 92 again. CLS has been consistently average ~90% post-recession. If any year was 80% it was 2009/10.

C/O 2016 (OCI '14) was 87%. The year before, 85%. '14 said their year was like 81%.

I'm pretty sure this just isn't accurate. from like a raw data perspective. I'm only stressing this point because I think it's important -- EIP success rate hasn't dipped below 85% since the depths of the recession (2009). I'd like to see where you're getting these numbers from if its true.

It got a pretty good laugh from the room, as did a few other things they said. Also some really confusing statements that they made repeatedly about how the goal isn't to get the most screeners, but to get interviews with firms that you'll fit well with. Fit is obviously an aspect, but how can they possibly say it's objectively better to have fewer interviews? They made a particular note to say you shouldn't "game the system" with spreadsheets and research and such, because people who do that end up wasting their time just to get one more interview. I can't even come up with a rational basis for why it's in their interest to push that narrative.

They also described ranking bids IMO in the wrong way, saying that if you really want a firm you should rank them higher and that's what it's about. They mentioned First Failed Bid in passing and said the list will be available in June, but didn't really explain the actual selection process. Just a really weird presentation overall if you came into it with any prior knowledge of how the system works.

I think the idea is that you can only accept one offer anyway, so there's no point in getting interviews at firms you wouldn't work at. It's better to have a few screeners at firms you want (and realistically would want you) than a bunch of screeners at firms you don't want (or would never hire you). There's a lot of work between screeners and accepted offers and I think OCS is worried about people forgetting this. Just my take.

Part of it reminded me of how my college counseling office tried to limit the number of colleges you applied to, because they were worried about you taking spots from other students at schools you yourself would probably never attend. And in some ways it makes sense here because the number of screeners is limited, so why bid Boies with shit grades and take a spot from someone with a legitimate shot? Or bid an LA firm when you would never work in LA? But at the same time, part of the problem is that counselors aren't really looking out for you individually, but rather for the class as a whole.

It got a pretty good laugh from the room, as did a few other things they said. Also some really confusing statements that they made repeatedly about how the goal isn't to get the most screeners, but to get interviews with firms that you'll fit well with. Fit is obviously an aspect, but how can they possibly say it's objectively better to have fewer interviews? They made a particular note to say you shouldn't "game the system" with spreadsheets and research and such, because people who do that end up wasting their time just to get one more interview. I can't even come up with a rational basis for why it's in their interest to push that narrative.

They also described ranking bids IMO in the wrong way, saying that if you really want a firm you should rank them higher and that's what it's about. They mentioned First Failed Bid in passing and said the list will be available in June, but didn't really explain the actual selection process. Just a really weird presentation overall if you came into it with any prior knowledge of how the system works.

I think the idea is that you can only accept one offer anyway, so there's no point in getting interviews at firms you wouldn't work at. It's better to have a few screeners at firms you want (and realistically would want you) than a bunch of screeners at firms you don't want (or would never hire you). There's a lot of work between screeners and accepted offers and I think OCS is worried about people forgetting this. Just my take.

Part of it reminded me of how my college counseling office tried to limit the number of colleges you applied to, because they were worried about you taking spots from other students at schools you yourself would probably never attend. And in some ways it makes sense here because the number of screeners is limited, so why bid Boies with shit grades and take a spot from someone with a legitimate shot? Or bid an LA firm when you would never work in LA? But at the same time, part of the problem is that counselors aren't really looking out for you individually, but rather for the class as a whole.

Maybe I've just read too many of Mono's posts, but I don't think this is right, especially for people below median, because you don't really know and it doesn't really matter where you "want" to work. I mean obviously if you have no real interest or ties to California and you bid firms in LA and SF/SV that's a waste of your time and theirs, just like how you shouldn't bid Wachtell if you're at median. But if you just want generic NYC transactional, which is true of most of the class, the goal should be to maximize the number of screeners you get, because most of the firms are largely fungible, and the more interviews you have, the higher chance you get of getting callbacks and offers. Seems pretty straightforward to me.

ETA that with the impact of the First Failed Bid data still playing out since they started releasing it two years ago, I think the goal should be to maximize the number of screeners you get at least initially, and you can always drop during the period if you don't want some of them, allowing others to pick them up, mitigating your concern about taking slots from others who would benefit more from them.

LetsGoMets wrote:Maybe I've just read too many of Mono's posts, but I don't think this is right, especially for people below median, because you don't really know and it doesn't really matter where you "want" to work. I mean obviously if you have no real interest or ties to California and you bid firms in LA and SF/SV that's a waste of your time and theirs, just like how you shouldn't bid Wachtell if you're at median. But if you just want generic NYC transactional, which is true of most of the class, the goal should be to maximize the number of screeners you get, because most of the firms are largely fungible, and the more interviews you have, the higher chance you get of getting callbacks and offers. Seems pretty straightforward to me.

ETA that with the impact of the First Failed Bid data still playing out since they started releasing it two years ago, I think the goal should be to maximize the number of screeners you get at least initially, and you can always drop during the period if you don't want some of them, allowing others to pick them up, mitigating your concern about taking slots from others who would benefit more from them.